Anti-Semitism and the UN

Has the UN arrived at a turning point? Or was Monday's conference merely a fig leaf -- a PR response to some bad press?

A seminar on anti-Semitism was held at the United Nations this week. Secretary-General Kofi Annan opened the program by rebuking "those who . . . continue to spread lies and vile stereotypes about Jews and Judaism." Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and Nobel peace laureate, delivered a moving keynote address. Three panels of witnesses -- academics, activists, religious leaders -- spoke about the menace of anti-Semitism and how to combat it. The event was presided over by Shashi Tharoor, the undersecretary-general for communications, who also delivered the closing remarks.

All in all, you might think, a typical UN program -- one of scores of gatherings the world body hosts each year on a wide array of human rights issues. The antisemitic hatred and violence seething in so much of the world are a grave international problem, so it stands to reason that the UN would make it the focus of regular and serious attention.

Except that it doesn't. Monday's conference on anti-Semitism was the first in UN history.

The United Nations was born nearly 60 years ago in the wake of the Nazi genocide against the Jews. It was the reaction, in part, of a world stricken by the horror of Auschwitz and Babi Yar. Awareness of the Holocaust informs the UN's seminal documents, above all the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet not once in its six decades -- not until this week -- had the UN ever convened a meeting to discuss the hatred or persecution of Jews. Not once has it adopted a resolution dealing specifically with anti-Semitism. Not once has it published a report on anti-Jewish racism or incitement.

"Even when judged against the hypocrisy with which the UN has frequently treated its own founding principles," wrote legal scholar Anne Bayefsky, a professor at Columbia University Law School, in an important article in Commentary earlier this year, "the international body's abiding hostility to the just claims of Israel and the Jewish people remains a special, and especially egregious, case."

Bayefsky's essay, along with an earlier piece in The Wall Street Journal, were devastating. From the UN's earliest years, she showed, anti-Semitism was the great evil it refused to notice. The first time a resolution dealing even partly with bigotry against Jews came up for a vote was 1959, a year "when some 2,000 anti-Jewish incidents . . . were reported in almost 40 countries." The original title of the resolution was "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism and Other Forms of Racial Prejudice and Religious Intolerance of a Similar Nature." But by the time it reached the General Assembly floor, the words "anti-Semitism" had been cut.

The lengths to which the UN will to go to avoid any condemnation of Jew-hatred would be comical if they weren't so contemptible.

The lengths to which the UN will to go to avoid any condemnation of Jew-hatred would be comical if they weren't so contemptible. When it adopted an international convention against racial discrimination, it refused to include a reference to anti-Semitism. "The Soviet Union, its satellites, and its Arab allies," noted Bayefsky, "insisted that anti-Semitism was a question not of race but of religion." Yet when the UN later adopted a resolution on religious intolerance, the lead sponsor insisted that anti-Semitism should be omitted because that was a matter not of religion but of race.

The UN's 1975 resolution equating Zionism -- the national liberation movement of the Jewish people -- to racism was only the most notorious illustration of its anti-Jewish bias. The measure was repealed in 1991, but the UN continues to anathematize the world's only Jewish state.

The UN's 2001 Durban conference on racism and xenophobia, for example, turned into an antisemitic bacchanal -- an event so hateful, the US delegation walked out. At times, the venom has sunk to medieval lows. "In presentations to the UN Commission on Human Rights," Bayefsky wrote, Arab delegates have trafficked in blood libels, "accusing the Israelis of . . . needing to kill Arabs for the proper observance of Yom Kippur and of injecting Palestinian children with HIV-positive blood."

The professor's indictment got Kofi Annan's attention. Not only did he accept her challenge to convene a UN conference on anti-Semitism, he invited her to speak. She agreed, and delivered a speech last Monday the likes of which had not been heard at the UN since Daniel Patrick Moynihan blasted the Zionism resolution in 1975. She described the UN as "the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism" -- a place where "the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize." It was a dramatic presentation, and it drew a standing ovation. (The speech can be read here.)

So has the UN arrived at a turning point? Or was Monday's conference merely a fig leaf -- a PR response to some bad press?

That depends entirely on what the secretary-general does next. It is up to Annan to take on the anti-Semitism within the UN's ranks -- to insist that Israel's pariah status end -- to denounce Jew-hatred as a dangerous scourge. In short, to show moral leadership and courage.

Frankly, I doubt that Annan has it in him. But then, I doubted that Annan would pay any attention to Bayefsky's powerful writings in the first place. I turned out to be wrong about that. Here's hoping I'm wrong again.

Visitor Comments: 10

The UN has passed one resolution that favors Israel... its creation. Following this act however, it has constantly bombarded Israel with comments that undermine Israel's treatment of it's peoples.

(9)
Regina Feller,
August 12, 2004 12:00 AM

Agree

i agree-I am a jewish canadian, 25 and I believe everybody should look after they neighbour-my best friend is a jew and a muslum-I don't care! Humans are just that-humans and it our responsibility to look after they neighbour, as we say in hebrew Byachad (together)!

(8)
Helena Fernz,
August 1, 2004 12:00 AM

A MUST READ FOR ALL

I found this article an eye-opner. We hear so often about UN stances, but I was completely in the dark about the manner that this world body has ignored the anti-semitism issue. I am shocked, I am angry and yes I am NOT Jewish. How much more worse it must be for Jews to face all this?
What small and bigoted minds fail to realise is that a threat against any one people or religion is a threat to all. And it is not just because these swings in hatred can inevitably engulf others that is frightening. What we should all be concerned about is that if we ignore anti-semitism and look the other way, do we have the right to call ourselves human? Hatred of race and religion has no place in this world and if it is encouraged subtly or otherwise, we are charting a course for self-destruction.

Helena Fernz
Writer, Poet
Malaysia

(7)
Aryeh Shmuel Goldman,
July 2, 2004 12:00 AM

the article was very intresting. I think that you should have this writer do a lot of stories

(6)
Richard Garcia,
June 29, 2004 12:00 AM

Don't hold your breath

While a conference on anti-semitism is a promising step, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the U.N. to take any further steps. I am touched that the UN "feels our pain" but what steps do they recommend taking to combat militant Islamic extremism, the source of most of the anti-semitic violence in Europe and elsewhere? Are they going to take any steps to even condemn the terrorism directed against Israel, a tiny country and the only place we can really call our own? Will there be some understanding that Israel's actions are motivated by self-defense?

The international left generally lists anti-semitism as one of the evils in the world. But it is quite hypocritical on this count. They are (appropriately) outraged by those fringe groups in the hills of Idaho, and the likes of Haider and LePen in Europe. But when it comes to those groups that are more numerous, brutal, and chas v'shalom effective at killing and terrorizing Jews (i.e. in the Moslem world), they at best turn a blind eye, and in some cases are openly supportive. Surely, even the most inflammatory comments by Haider, LePen, et al are mild compared to even moderate elements in the Muslim Arab world.

So the challenge for the UN is to demonstrate that anti-semitism is to be condemned, even when the perpetrators are not rich white men, and for there to be something other than reflexive condemnation of Israel, when Israel is only acting out of self-preservation.

(5)
David H. Floyd,
June 29, 2004 12:00 AM

United Nothing?

This article amplifies the disregard the
UN has for Israel, and Jewish people everywhere. Thank you for further exposing this very serious problem!

(4)
Gene Morris,
June 28, 2004 12:00 AM

EXCELLENT

Thank you for enlighting me. I did not know this had occured at the UN

(3)
Ricardo Coelho da Silva,
June 28, 2004 12:00 AM

We must gather together against
anti-semitism.

(2)
Russ,
June 28, 2004 12:00 AM

Misleading - as usual

"The United Nations was born nearly 60 years ago in the wake of the Nazi genocide against the Jews. It was the reaction, in part, of a world stricken by the horror of Auschwitz and Babi Yar."

- I do not believe that, as implied, the UN was created in response to the Holocaust. Though the Holocaust might have been in the thinking of some members of the UN when it was created, I was under the impression that the UN was created as a World political center for discussion and debate on World issues.

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...